Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 22

Transcription

1 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DR. LUH YU REN, CIVIL ACTION NO.: Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON AT VICTORIA and THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM, Defendants. JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: NOW COMES Plaintiff Dr. Luh Yu Ren (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff ) in the above-referenced matter, complaining of and about Defendants The University of Houston at Victoria (hereinafter referred to as UHV ) and The University of Houston System (hereinafter referred to as the UHS ) (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants ), and for cause of action files this Original Complaint, showing to the Court the following: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Dr. Luh Yu Ren is an individual residing in Sugar Land, Fort Bend County, Texas. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and the State of Texas. 2. Defendant The University of Houston at Victoria is a state-funded university in the State of Texas. Defendant UHV may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Jim Davis, its Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation, at The Price Daniel Senior Building, 209 West 14th Street, 8th Floor, Austin, TX Page 1 of 22

2 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 2 of Defendant The University of Houston System is a state-funded university in the State of Texas. Defendant UHS may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Jim Davis, its Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation, at The Price Daniel Senior Building, 209 West 14th Street, 8th Floor, Austin, TX II. JURISDICTION 4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as Plaintiff s causes of action arise under federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) (which is codified in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a)) (hereinafter referred to as Title VII ); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C 621 et seq. (as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991) (which is codified in 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (hereinafter referred to as the ADEA ); and, the Americans with Disabilities Act (as amended) (which is codified in 42 U.S.C et seq.) (hereinafter referred to as the ADA ). 5. Additionally, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C over Plaintiff s similar state claims that arise under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, which is codified in Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, Texas Labor Code et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the TCHRA ), because such claims are so related to the claims within the Court s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution. 6. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) because this is the judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. III. NATURE OF THE ACTION 7. This is an action brought pursuant to Title VII and the TCHRA on the ground that Page 2 of 22

3 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 3 of 22 Plaintiff was discriminated and retaliated against because of Plaintiff s national origin (as he is Chinese) and Plaintiff s sex (i.e., a male). The action is to correct and recover for Defendants unlawful employment practices on the basis of Plaintiff s national origin and sex, including the discrimination and retaliation based on Plaintiff s protected activities involving his national origin and sex (e.g., the complaints Plaintiff made about it). See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a); 42 U.S.C and 1983; and Texas Labor Code et seq.. 8. Further, this is an action under the ADEA and the TCHRA to correct and recover for unlawful employment practices on the basis of Plaintiff s age (i.e., sixty-four (64) years old), which includes Plaintiff being discriminated and retaliated against because of his age. See 29 U.S.C 621 et seq.; and Texas Labor Code et seq.. 9. This is also an action to correct and recover for Defendants violations of the ADA and the TCHRA. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him on the basis of his disability or the perception of a disability, failed to accommodate his disability, and subsequently retaliated against Plaintiff after engaging in protected activities. See 42 U.S.C et seq.; and Texas Labor Code et seq.. IV. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 10. On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the EEOC ) against Defendants for race discrimination, national origin discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation (which is Charge No ). This charge was filed for discrimination and retaliation. (See Exhibit 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference). 11. On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended charge of discrimination based on national origin discrimination, age discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, Page 3 of 22

4 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 4 of 22 and retaliation with the EEOC; Charge No This charge was related to ongoing discrimination and retaliation. (See Exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference). 12. Subsequently, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right Sue, dated November 4, 2016 (but not postmarked until November 8, 2016), which was received on November 14, (See Exhibit 3, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference). The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division also issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue, dated November 4, 2016, which was received on November 14, (See Exhibit 4, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference). Plaintiff files this lawsuit within ninety (90) days of receiving the Right to Sue notices. Therefore, this lawsuit is timely filed. V. FACTS 13. Plaintiff is a sixty-four (64) years old Chinese male. In 1986, Plaintiff received his Ph.D. from the Department of Information Systems and Quantitative Science in the College of Business Administration at Texas Tech University with a major in Business Statistics. Plaintiff has primarily researched business forecasting and its applications in finance. His research papers have been published in various journals. 14. In 1987, Plaintiff began working for Defendants (i.e., his employer) at the UHV s School of Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as UHV - SBA ). Plaintiff is the most senior faculty member at UHV - SBA. Both Defendants offer online programs, which are open to to national and international students. Plaintiff teaches face-to-face, online, and itv classes for Defendants. 15. On September 23, 2007, Plaintiff s spring 2008 assignment to QMS 6351 was cancelled. The reason it was cancelled was because of Plaintiff s refusal in May of 2007 to give Page 4 of 22

5 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 5 of 22 students (who complained about their grades) a B grade in Plaintiff s QMS 6351 classes, which was demanded by the former department chair (who was Iranian). This demand was made via an to Plaintiff with a cc to the students that complained about their grades. Plaintiff refused to abide by the demand because those students had received grades in the 40s to the 60s. Since Plaintiff refused to change the grades, Plaintiff was put on a faculty development plan. Therefore, Plaintiff complained about it and filed a grievance, which was determined to have merit. 16. Since that time, Defendants administration started retaliating against Plaintiff for not cooperating with them. As a result, Plaintiff was reassigned to teach a quantitative decision making class (which was identified as QMS 3321 ), which Plaintiff had been previously excluded from teaching in 2000 due to his lack of academic qualifications for that class. Since then, Plaintiff was paid according to the salary standard for faculty members that taught economics and statistics classes. The department chair promised Plaintiff, in writing, that the assignment of QMS 3321 would only be for one (1) semester. Defendants allowed a younger male to quit teaching QMS 3321 after he had created and taught it for seven (7) years. Defendants did not assign two (2) younger faculty members to teach QMS 3321 even though they were hired in response to a job posting specifically for QMS In 2009, a younger female faculty member was hired to teach QMS 3321 and a business statistics class for the Victoria campus. But, Plaintiff was still required to teach her QMS 3221 and business statistics classes at the Victoria campus even though Plaintiff s home campus was in Sugar Land. As such, there was a driving distance of about two (2) hours between the Victoria and the Sugar Land campuses. To date, between the two QMS faculty members, the younger female faculty member has only taught one (1) time at her home campus in Victoria, whereas Plaintiff has Page 5 of 22

6 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 6 of 22 taught in Victoria, which is not his home campus, more than seven (7) times. 17. The discrimination between the two QMS faculty members (i.e., Plaintiff and the younger female faculty member) by Dean Farhang Niroomand (hereinafter referred to as Dean Niroomand ), who is Iranian, began when the younger female faculty member was hired at a higher salary than Plaintiff's currently salary (which salary he has gotten after working for Defendants for about twenty-nine (29) years). Aside from being given a higher salary, Dean Niroomand also hired her at a higher position as being an associate professor. Records show that it was accomplished using inaccurate information and criteria to do it. Furthermore, that faculty member was hired to work at the Victoria campus. However, even though Plaintiff was assigned to work at the Sugar Land campus, Plaintiff is the faculty member that has been assigned more than others to teach at off-campus sites, including at the younger female faculty member s designated teaching site of Victoria. Teaching on these campuses are less favorable teaching assignments than being able to teach on the internet. This younger female faculty member has also never been assigned to teach QMS courses in the off-campus site of Cinco Ranch, whereas Plaintiff has taught there more than fifteen (15) times. In terms of extra travel time, this is equivalent to teaching an extra fourteen (14) classes. This gender and age discrimination also enabled the younger female faculty member to be the most-appointed faculty member, serving on seven (7) out of the twelve (12) school-level committees, and helped her be promoted to a full-time professor in four (4) years. 18. In 2010, Dean Niroomand changed the promotion policy to require professors that have been at the school longer, who are predominantly older professors, to publish articles more than the younger professors. Plaintiff, who had published four (4) papers in the preceding five (5) years, suddenly had to have published seven (7) more papers in order to be eligible to apply Page 6 of 22

7 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 7 of 22 for a promotion. 19. Around January 23, 2010, Dean Niroomand denied Plaintiff s application for publication award of $ by fabricating a reason, which was not true. Plaintiff filed a grievance about it. On February 4, 2010, Dean Niroomand ed Plaintiff to demand that he not contact UHV s former Provost Suzanne LaBreque. On February 12, 2010, Dean Niroomand threatened Plaintiff, in person, by stating that if he and his co-workers continued to complain, then, Dean Niroomand would conduct an investigation on them. Thereafter, Dean Niroomand sent a negative report to the Provost and his department chair about Plaintiff s unreasonable absence from Plaintiff s paper presentation in a conference. Despite Dean Niroomand denying Plaintiff s publication award, Dean Niroomand granted a younger female professor, who comes from the same country as him, $10, for her summer research sabbatical even though her paper had already been sent in for publication on January 7, However, although this same professor was entitled to a $ publication award, she was not entitled to the $10, grant. In March of 2010, Plaintiff was also penalized in his annual evaluation for contacting Provost LaBrecque too much. 20. In a UHV - SBA meeting on October 14, 2011, Dean Niroomand announced that the faculty development fund of $2, was no longer available to UHV SBA faculty members. In that same meeting, Dean Niroomand told Plaintiff that he should leave their school to go to another school where the funds were still available. Oddly, on April 10, 2015, UHV s former Provost Jeffrey Cass (hereinafter referred to as Provost Cass ) announced to the entire faculty that the $2, faculty development award was always available to every faculty member. 21. Around April 18, 2012, Plaintiff (and at least four (4) other Chinese faculty Page 7 of 22

8 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 8 of 22 members) had five (5) points deducted on their annual evaluations for not attending the commencement ceremony in 2011 even though about twenty-two (22) out of the thirty-eight (38) other faculty members, who were mostly from other countries, missed the commencement ceremony. These other non-chinese faculty members did not receive any points deducted from their annual evaluations. Plaintiff received an additional 0.5 deduction (out of a 5.0 point scale) from his overall annual evaluation score. The deduction of points that was made was a discretionary deduction that was made by Dean Niroomand. Since Plaintiff s annual evaluation was unfairly lower, Plaintiff did not receive the similar increases as his non-chinese colleagues or younger female colleagues. Given the fact that the annual evaluations directly correlate to annual pay raises, Plaintiff has only received a very minimal pay raise, and no pay raise in the last three (3) years since Dean Niroomand started discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff, whereas other faculty members (e.g., the younger and female QMS faculty members) have received a pay raise of about twenty percent (20%) to thirty percent (30%). The difference in these pay raises is about a $30, salary difference between Plaintiff and the other younger female QMS faculty members. In addition, other faculty members, who were from the same geographic region as Dean Niroomand, received high annual evaluations even though they received low student evaluations. 22. Furthermore, most of Plaintiff s travel requests for presenting his research (which occurs at conferences) were not properly funded. In 2012, three UHV - SBA faculty members attended the same conference in New Orleans, which is called the Federation of Business Discipline. Plaintiff was the only one who got the Dean s approval with reduced funding while the other two (2) younger female faculty members received full funding as they had requested. While Dean Niroomand approved Plaintiff for $ in 2012, in 2013, Dean Niroomand Page 8 of 22

9 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 9 of 22 approved his younger female colleague for $1, to attend the same conference in New Orleans, which was the Southwest Economic Association Conference. Plaintiff was never provided a valid reason for why he was denied his request for full travel funds (especially when others were receiving it, as described above). Nonetheless, on April 24, 2012, Provost Cass e- mailed Plaintiff stating that just because Plaintiff s funding was cut, it did not mean that the other two female faculty members could not get fully funded. 23. As part of the harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation, Dean Niroomand would also ask Plaintiff if he understood English. He would also tell Plaintiff to not contact the Provost. Additionally, Dean Niroomand referred to Plaintiff as a troublemaker to other faculty members and to Plaintiff. On March 15, 2012, Dean Niroomand also said in front of UHV SBA executive team members that Plaintiff did not make any contributions, but was merely making trouble. Dean Niroomand has also previously called Chinese people stupid by stating stupid Chinese. 24. As a result of Defendants actions, in March of 2012 through May of 2012, Plaintiff filed four (4) grievances against Defendants, including (but not limited to) unfair summer teaching assignments, unfair funding approval, unfair annual evaluations, and public humiliation by Dean Niroomand (which included when he fabricated information about Plaintiff). However, these grievances were dismissed by Provost Cass. Plaintiff received no relief from the grievances that he made about Defendants. 25. The faculty members that Dean Niroomand was hiring were under the age of forty (40) years old. 26. In mid-october of 2012, Plaintiff received open records about the hiring of the younger female QMS faculty member. These documents showed that there were issues with the Page 9 of 22

10 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 10 of 22 manner and method that she was hired, including not abiding by the new hire s contract, which appeared to have been disregarded in terms of the subject she was teaching and her teaching location. This impacted Plaintiff s teaching assignments and locations. Plaintiff reported this issue to Defendants legal department; but, his complaint was ignored. 27. On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an EEOC Charge for national origin discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation. 28. On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff also reported the age and sex discrimination issues regarding the younger female QMS faculty member to Provost Cass. Plaintiff s April 8, 2013 confidential complaint, which was sent only to Provost Cass, was intentionally leaked to the younger female QMS faculty member. This led to Plaintiff receiving threats towards him regarding the situation. Thus, on April 21, 2013, Plaintiff complained about it to human resources and Provost Cass. Plaintiff never received a response. That same day, the younger female QMS faculty member filed a counter complaint. Eventually, Plaintiff was officially reprimanded. Human resources igorned or dismissed the many complaints made by Plaintiff regarding the discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and hostile work environment. 29. In further retaliation, Defendants administration made unfounded accusations regarding Plaintiff sexually harassing the younger female faculty member. However, even she denied any sexual harassment. Nonetheless, on November 8, 2013, Provost Cass officially reprimanded Plaintiff for this alleged harassment despite the fact that these claims had been invalidated by all parties. On February 6, 2014, Defendants grievance committee ruled that Provost Cass actions were inappropriate. But, on March 4, 2014, UHV s former President, Philip Castille (hereinafter referred to as President Castille ), supported Provost Cass actions, including officially reprimanding Plaintiff, in writing, by putting the reprimand in Plaintiff s Page 10 of 22

11 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 11 of 22 employment file. Moreover, in Provost Cass December 15, s, he essentially claimed that Plaintiff sexually harassed the same younger female faculty member, again, as well as two other female colleagues (including a department chair, who Plaintiff identified in his grievances for unfair teaching assignments, etc.). However, these claims were also unsubstantiated. 30. Thereafter, Plaintiff reported this retaliation to Defendants Office of Equal Opportunity Services (hereinafter referred to as EOS ). But, Defendants EOS dismissed Plaintiff s complaint; and, returned the case to Defendants. The hearing was processed in violation of its own procedures. In mid-february 2016, Defendants human resources director informed Plaintiff about the mid-march 2016 deadline for providing additional information and witnesses. Although Plaintiff requested an extension of the hearing date (due to the procedural violation and his health issues), Plaintiff s request was denied. Thus, the hearing went forward without Plaintiff being present at the hearing. Defendants also did not use the documents that Plaintiff had previously provided to the panel, which was over one hundred (100) pages. 31. In 2013, Plaintiff applied for travel funding to present his full paper at the Decision Sciences Institute Conference, which was considered to be a Tier 1 conference. For Tier 1 conferences, Defendants should approve $1, But, Plaintiff was only given $1, for it. In 2014, Plaintiff s travel request for this same conference was denied. The reason Plaintiff was given for the denial was because Plaintiff was apparently accused of selfplagiarism, which was proven to be untrue. In contrast, in 2013, a younger Middle Eastern faculty member, who was also allegedly accused of self-plagiarism was promoted to being a fulltime professor. Additionally, in 2014, a younger female American faculty member, who was also allegedly accused of plagiarism/self-plagiarism, was promoted to being a full-time professor as well as being appointed to chair a department. Page 11 of 22

12 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 12 of On December 4, 2014, in a policy review meeting, Dean Niroomand referred to Plaintiff as a troublemaker, stated two faculty members/chair members were constantly being harassed, and mentioned Plaintiff s complaint about being assigned to teach in Victoria (which was part of Plaintiff s EEOC claims). Plaintiff then complained to Defendants, via a few of UHV s administrators, including the former President Castille. But, no action was taken regarding the complaints. Dean Niroomand learned about Plaintiff s complaints. 33. Thereafter, during a February 20, 2015 school meeting, Dean Niroomand said in front of the entire business faculty that Plaintiff sent a nasty letter to the top administrators and created friction between the top administrators and himself. Dean Niroomand also told Plaintiff to go make another report about this meeting. After the meeting, everyone got their pizza, and nobody sat next to Plaintiff. Dean Niroomand said to the former Associate Dean, Jeffrey Blodgett, that it was sad to see Plaintiff sitting alone, but that it felt good to insult Plaintiff in public. Dean Niroomand similarly singled out Plaintiff about his complaints in the junior faculty meeting on April 3, In the spring of 2015, a younger female Iranian economics faculty member was scheduled to teach a statistics class in Victoria. Plaintiff was then assigned to replace her assignment in Victoria without any advanced notice to Plaintiff or discussing it with Plaintiff. The reason for this change was because the UHV - SBA claimed that she was more qualified to teach graduate statistics than Plaintiff, even though his background was in business statistics and had been teaching graduate business statistics since Her background was in economics. Plaintiff s student annual evaluations were much better than those of the younger female econcomics faculty member. Moreover, the other younger female QMS faculty member has only taught once at the Victoria campus, which was her home campus (as identified in her Page 12 of 22

13 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 13 of 22 contract). Neither of the two other female faculty members that teach statistics has ever been assigned to teach that statistics class at the Victoria campus. Defendants have further disregarded Plaintiff s teaching subjects (which were adjusted in accordance with the AACSB accreditation requirement for an instructor s qualification) and Plaintiff s home campus in Sugar Land, as agreed upon with the former Dean (i.e., Charles Bullock). Defendants denied the ruling made by the grievance committee, which was that Plaintiff s grievance had merit. In Defendants dismissal letter, Provost Cass said that Plaintiff s 1987 contract specified that Plaintiff could be assigned to teach at other locations. No mention was made in that letter about Plaintiff s complaint that the younger female QMS faculty, who was hired in 2009 to teach in Victoria, was teaching different subjects and at a different location than what was set forth in her contract. 35. In the summer of 2015, the SBA administration unjustifiably classified Plaintiff as a non-academic qualified (hereinafter referred to as AQ ) faculty member. However, Plaintiff had more than three (3) journal publications in a consecutive five-year period to meet the AQ requirement in business statistics. Defendants had arbitrarily used four (4) years and seven and a half (7.5) months to replace the five (5) year period - the latter which had been defined in the contracts that were issued to newly hired employees. Defendants then increased Plaintiff s teaching load from three (3) to four (4) classes per semester and assigned him two (2) classes entitled MGMT 3306, which is outside of the scope of his knowledge. Importantly, there were two (2) younger Iranian faculty members that were hired in 2014 to teach this subject. 36. Due to Plaintiff being assigned the MGMT 3306 class, as well as the ongoing discrimination and retaliation by Defendants, Plaintiff s health suffered to the point where he had to apply for medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act in August of Plaintiff s Page 13 of 22

14 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 14 of 22 initial application for medical leave was denied because of the delay caused by the human resources director regarding approving a third doctor. Although Plaintiff ended up not teaching the assigned MGMT 3306 class in 2015, the SBA administration assessed Plaintiff s teaching of MGMT 3306 at a 2.0 in his 2015 annual performance evaluation. 37. In the summer of 2015, Plaintiff s graduate level statistics class had nine (9) students enrolled, which was above the minimum requirement of five (5) students. But, his class was cancelled about one (1) week before the class started. The cancellation was right after Plaintiff complained about the unfair assessments in his 2014 annual evaluations (which evaluation was based on false allegations). Plaintiff was the only professor in the SBA that had a class cancelled when there were enough students that enrolled to meet the minimum requirement. Similarly, in the summer of 2016, Plaintiff already had five (5) students enrolled two (2) weeks before the class was to set to start; but, Plaintiff s class was cancelled. However, there were three (3) other statistics classes that were assigned to three (3) younger economics faculty members, including two (2) of them that were already teaching other summer classes. Out of all the business faculty members responding to the SBA administration s request for teaching in the summer, Plaintiff was the only one not teaching in the summer. Previously, Dean Niroomand required Plaintiff to teach a face-to-face class in the summer of 2011, the summer of 2012, and the summer of 2013, which contradicts Defendants school policy that that if a faculty member taught one (1) class that was eight (8) to twelve (12) weeks long the previous summer, that professor would be given preference to teach two (2) online classes in the current summer semester. 38. Given the discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff was diagnosed with having a major depression disorder. As a result, Plaintiff (and his doctor) requested a workplace accommodation for Plaintiff s disability. Specifically, as part of the accommodation, Plaintiff s Page 14 of 22

15 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 15 of 22 doctor stated that any assignments requiring long distance driving should be avoided and that Plaintiff should not be assigned to teach MGMT 3306 (which is beyond his experience), as they trigger his medical issues. On November 2, 2016, Defendants denied Plaintiff s request for an accommodation even though all requested documents were provided to Defendants. The denial of Plaintiff s application for an accommodation was recommended by the human resources director, who was involved in the improper hiring of the younger female faculty member in The human resources director determined that Plaintiff was qualified to teach MGMT 3306 despite the fact that this was beyond his business statistics discipline. That determination was based on an incorrect 2014 job description that the human resources director found (that was for new management faculty members), which was used for Plaintiff s application. After Plaintiff s several requests for a correct job description for him, in August of 2016, the human resources director sent Plaintiff a new job description, which was created by his department chair for a non-existing position in management science, in order to have it fit the MGMT 3306 class that they were trying to force Plaintiff to teach. No management science class had been offered since Despite the fact that Plaintiff is the only full-time faculty member with a Ph.D. in business statistics, and there are about six (6) to nine (9) business statistics classes that are offered each semester, as a result of the discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff is not teaching those classes (even though Plaintiff would clearly best be utilized by having him teach those classes). 39. Although Plaintiff timely filed an appeal to the denial using Defendants internal process, as Plaintiff submitted it on or before November 16, 2016, on January 5, 2017, Defendants upheld the denial of Plaintiff s workplace accommodation. Plaintiff was informed that said decision was Defendants final decision; and, that it was not appealable. Plaintiff has Page 15 of 22

16 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 16 of 22 been treated less favorably because of his disability. VI. COUNT 1 - TITLE VII NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION 40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 41. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his national origin (i.e., Chinese), including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and creating a hostile work environment. 42. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect his status because of Plaintiff s national origin (i.e., Chinese), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a). VII. COUNT 2 - TCHRA NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION 43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 44. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his national origin (i.e., Chinese). 45. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect Plaintiff s status because of Plaintiff s national origin (i.e., Chinese), in violation of Texas Labor Code et seq.. Page 16 of 22

17 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 17 of 22 VIII. COUNT 3 - TITLE VII GENDER DISCRIMINATION 46. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates by reference all of the above numbered paragraphs. 47. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his sex (i.e., male). 48. Defendants actions demonstrate they also engaged in discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and creating a hostile work environment against Plaintiff because of his gender (i.e., a male). Defendants treatment against Plaintiff affected the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff s employment in violation of federal discrimination laws; or, limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect Plaintiff s status as an employee because of Plaintiff s gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e- 2(a). IX. COUNT 4 - TCHRA GENDER DISCRIMINATION 49. Defendants intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his gender (i.e., male). 50. Defendants, as joint employers, discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect Plaintiff s status because of Plaintiff s gender (i.e., male), in violation of the Texas Labor Code et seq.. X. COUNT 5 - ADEA AGE DISCRIMINATION 51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the Page 17 of 22

18 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 18 of 22 paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 52. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his age (i.e., sixty-four (64) years old). 53. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive him of any employment opportunity or adversely affect his status because of Plaintiff s age (i.e., sixty-four (64) years old), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.). XI. COUNT 6 - TCHRA AGE DISCRIMINATION 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 55. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his age (i.e., sixty-four (64) years old). 56. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect Plaintiff s status because of Plaintiff s age (i.e., sixty-four (64) years old), in violation of the Texas Labor Code et seq.. XII. COUNT 7 - ADA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 58. Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA. See 42 U.S.C and 12111(8). Page 18 of 22

19 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 19 of Plaintiff is an employee within the meaning of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C (4). 60. Defendants, as joint employers, violated the ADA by intentionally discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability, including treating him less favorably than nondisabled employees. See 42 U.S.C Defendants further discriminated against Plaintiff by denying his request for reasonable accommodations, in violation of 42 U.S.C (9) and 12112(b)(5)(A). 62. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect Plaintiff s status because of Plaintiff s age (i.e., sixty-four (64) years old), in violation of the ADA. XIII. COUNT 8 - TCHRA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 64. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because of his disability (i.e., major depression disorder). 65. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or limited, segregated, or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive Plaintiff of any employment opportunity or adversely affect Plaintiff s status because of Plaintiff s disability (i.e., major depression disorder), in violation of the Texas Labor Code et seq.. Page 19 of 22

20 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 20 of 22 XIV. COUNT 9 - TITLE VII RETALIATION 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 67. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaints made to Defendants and the EEOC about the national origin discrimination and sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e- 2(a) and 2000e-3(a). XV. COUNT 10 - TCHRA RETALIATION 68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 69. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaints made to Defendants and the EEOC about the national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, age discrimination, and disability discrimination, in violation of the Texas Labor Code XVI. COUNT 11 - ADEA RETALIATION 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 71. Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaints made to Defendants and the EEOC about the age discrimination, in violation of the ADEA. XVII. COUNT 12 - ADA RETALIATION 72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. Page 20 of 22

21 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 21 of Defendants, as joint employers, intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaints made to Defendants and the EEOC about the disability discrimination, in violation of the ADA. XVIII. JURY DEMAND 74. Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues to be tried in this matter. Plaintiff submits the jury demand and herein submits the jury fee. XIX. PRAYER 75. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that on final trial, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant for: a. All damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled pursuant to this Original Complaint, or any amendments thereto, including but not limited to back pay, future wages, reinstatement, upgrading, and compensation for benefits not received; b. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, emotional distress; c. Past, present, and future physical pain and mental suffering; d. Punitive damages; e. Liquidated damages; f. Reasonable attorneys fees, as allowed by law (with conditional awards in the event of appeal); g. Pre-judgment interest at the highest rate permitted by law; h. Post-judgment interest from the judgment until paid at the highest rate permitted by law; Page 21 of 22

22 Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 22 of 22 i. Costs of Court; and j. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be entitled, whether by this Original Complaint or by any proper amendments thereto. Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Alfonso Kennard, Jr. Texas Bar No.: Southern District No: Augusta Drive, Suite 1450 Houston, TX Telephone No.: (713) Facsimile No.: (713) Alfonso.Kennard@kennardlaw.com ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFF Davina Bloom Texas Bar No.: Southern District Bar No: August Drive, Suite 1450 Houston, TX Telephone No.: (713) Facsimile No.: (713) Davina.Bloom@kennardlaw.com Page 22 of 22

23 JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16) Case 4:17-cv Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Dr. Luh Yu Ren (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Fort Bend (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) The University of Houston at Victoria and The University of Houston System County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Harris (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Alfonso Kennard, Jr Augusta Dr., Suite 1450 Houston, Texas (713) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC (a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/disabilities Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/disabilities Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration Other 550 Civil Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court VI. CAUSE OF ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY DATE 02/10/2017 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a); 42U.S.C. 1981,1983 TLC et seq. 621 et seq TLC et seq Brief description of cause: National Origin, Gender, Age, Disability and Retaliation CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No (See instructions): JUDGE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD DOCKET NUMBER RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

24 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 0 /16) Case 4:17-cv Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) II. III. IV. Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C and Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue. VI. VII. VIII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

25 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-2 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 1

26 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-2 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 2 of 2

27 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-3 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 2

28 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-3 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 2 of 4

29 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-3 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 3 of 4

30 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-3 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 4 of 4

31 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-4 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 3

32 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-4 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 2 of 2

33 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-5 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 4

34 Case 4:17-cv Document 1-5 Filed in TXSD on 02/10/17 Page 2 of 2